Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Friday, May 24, 2019

Engineered Adaptability and Blockchain Technology

We have been observing the continuous environmental tracking (CET) model that is becoming a serious challenge to Darwinism. Instead of "pressures" on organisms causing them to change, CET is using an engineering approach. That is, how would the Master Engineer have designed living things to adapt to changes in the environment?

Using blockchain programming technology, creationists are seeing more evidence of how populations of organisms can adapt.
Credit: Freeimages / Katia Grimmer-Laversanne
The process of blockchain technology was developed for Bitcoin digital currency, but has grown into something that can be used in other areas of technology (and I reckon it will probably still be around even if Bitcoin falls out of fashion). Computers are linked and regularly update transactions. In a similar manner, DNA can be compared to computer programming that can account for both stasis and variation. Using blockchain technology, we can see how organisms and populations can rapidly adapt.
Evolutionary selectionism believes that outside forces called selective pressures produce DNA modifications that lead to trait variations in organisms. Thus, DNA is an accumulation of selected random variations. However, selectionism finds it difficult to simultaneously explain both variation and stasis. The dilemma is that DNA cannot be modified via random mutation without also quickly losing its ability to produce traits. In other words, this kind of variation tends to not simply alter traits but eliminate them.

In contrast, computer software specialist Mitchel Soltys uses engineering principles in a model that compares DNA to a computer program that combines both instructions and data in a single stream. Though the code is bounded by fixed, top-level instructions, input data called variables enable variation. Soltys describes how this model accounts for both variation and stasis:
To read the entire article, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Blockchain-Like Process May Produce Adaptive Traits". Seems to me that the CET model is being developed on many levels, and should be very interesting to keep watching.



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, May 23, 2019

The Riddle of Reproduction

Materialists like Bill "I'm Not A Scientist But I Play One On TV" Nye, Clinton Richard Dawkins, and other will tell you that organisms live to pass along their genes to subsequent generations. Rather bleak, really. Believers on universal common descent evolution are baffled about the origin of reproduction.


One of the primary causes for consternation among evolutionists is the origin of reproduction. Taken from a creation perspective, however, it makes sense.
Credit: Pixabay / Erdenebayar Bayansan
There are several forms of asexual reproduction that include cloning in asexual organisms, fission, sending off spores as seeds, and parthenogenesis. Sexual reproduction is done in fewer methods including viviparity (that is what humans use). Evolutionists have suggested several possible origins of sexual reproduction, but cannot offer anything plausible. Our Creator designed living things to reproduce after their own kinds but to allow for variety and adaptation. Sex is a gift from God and is intended to be joyful when used according to his purpose.
Reproduction is broadly delineated into two major groupings: sexual and asexual. Sexual reproduction requires two organisms to exchange genetic material in cells contained in gametes. Asexual reproduction requires only one organism. Some organisms can reproduce both ways, while others are restricted to just one mechanism of reproduction.
To read the rest, click on "The Origin of Sexual and Asexual Reproduction".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Exploding the "Population Bomb"

Many years ago, I saw a poster version of the 1973 painting Overpopulation by John Pitre. It showed all the land filled with naked people, some even in the sea. This was quite possibly influenced by the 1973 book The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich, who was in turn presenting a Malthusian view.


Thomas Malthus influenced Charles Darwin influenced Paul Ehrlich who alarmed many people. "The Population Bomb" has been discredited, but Ehrlich is still popular among secularists.
Credit: Unsplash / San Fermin Pamplona - Navarra
Thomas Malthus was an economist who had some very pessimistic views of population and the struggle for existence, and was also an influence on Charles Darwin. Ehrlich is an anti-creationist who was influenced by Malthus and Darwin, and The Population Bomb upset quite a few people. However, his vision was seriously flawed. Interestingly, he is still highly respected by leftists. Is that why people still think drastic measures are in order? Hey, Granda! What's for supper? Maggot sausage and insect ice cream to save the planet and offset global warming, of course! These people are mentally ill.

The work was obviously based on numbers, did not deal with certain aspects of humanity, and did not have predictive ability. (He also denies the work of our Creator, who has given us minds to deal with many situations.) Not only has food production increased, but populations are declining, such as the 2018 US birth rate; some European countries are alarmed that they do not have enough people. Or how about the shortage of women in India and China due to abortion and infanticide?

I try to keep political things to a minimum in my posts. Unfortunately, secular science his running hell-bent for leather to support leftist causes nowadays. Once again, we see that Darwinian thinking has been detrimental to many people. This reminds me of the global climate change cult that uses bad data, false predictions (did you hear that a glacier in Greenland is growing again?), and emotional appeal to manipulate people for leftist agendas — which includes infringing on our God-given rights.

Population alarmism, like climate change hysteria, based on Darwinian thinking and the denial of God. Yes, God is there, and he does have his plans, old son. Population alarmism is unfounded and debunked.
In 1968, the “year’s most important book,” what Greg Garrard called a neo-Malthusian classic, The Population Bomb, by Stanford University Professor Paul Ehrlich, “made dire predictions and triggered a wave of repression around the world.”Authored by an evolutionary biologist known for his “groundbreaking studies of the co-evolution of flowering plants and butterflies,” it became a best seller, and turned the author into a celebrity. The book “would become one of the most influential books of the 20th century.”

Ehrlich’s conclusion was announced in the first sentence:
“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”
In the end, the book and the movement it birthed “fueled an anti-population-growth crusade that led to human rights abuses around the world.”
To read the rest, click on "The 'Population Bomb' Bombed".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Chinese Fossils Give Double Cambrian Impact

We recently examined the disparity of fossils in the Cambrian explosion, where many creatures are found at the phylum level that are fully formed. Many people use the word diverse, but disparate is more accurate because it emphasizes the dramatic differences. Cambrian fossils found in China give mute testimony to not only creation, but the Genesis Flood as well.


Further news about the Cambrian explosion. Fossils in China not only support recent creation, but also the Genesis Flood.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Dwergenpaartje (CC by-SA 3.0)
Although paleontologists must be wary of "feathered dinosaur" frauds in China, there is a great deal of information in this area. Evolutionists use the euphemism "knowledge gap" to indicate that they have no idea why there are no transitional forms, only complex organisms. In addition, many living fossils have been found, contrary to the dogma of evolutionary "pressures" based on external influences.

Also, many critters with soft tissues have been discovered. The evolutionist story is that fossils form over huge amounts of time, but hard and soft creatures alike were obviously buried quickly. It is conditions, not time, contrary to what Darwin's disciples tell us. This is further evidence of the Genesis Flood.
News reports reverberated with details from a fantastic new fossil site in southern China. The Cambrian remains supposedly represent some of the earliest creatures to have evolved on Earth, but two telling details show why these fossils fit better with biblical creation.

Researchers described in the journal Science the unique set of animals buried in black Cambrian siltstone layers. Cambrian rock layers are some of the lowest layers on Earth, and thus the earliest to get buried with fossils in them. These sediments bear secular age assignments upwards of 500 million years. Seen through an evolutionary lens, these early layers captured the earliest animals to have supposedly evolved—the so-called basal life forms.
To read the rest of the hard truth, click on "Stunning Chinese Fossils Support Creation".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, May 20, 2019

Another Evolution Propagandist Speaks Out

The spirit of Sanballat can be seen in many atheists and anti-creationists who implore us to be reasonable and put aside our foolish creation-believing ways. They utilize ridicule, intimidation, misuse of the law or rules (when possible), and other methods. Then the Sanballats offer to be pals, which should get your spider sense a-tingling.


Razib Khan wrote an article for a Conservative publication proclaiming the glories of evolution and calling religious people to compromise. The article is very dishonest.
Background image courtesy of Why?Outreach
"Who is Sanballat, Cowboy Bob?"

You can find him discussed in the Old Testament in the book of Nehemiah. The displaced Jews were given permission to rebuild the wall, but Sanballat and his cohorts got on the prod about it. He pulled his shenanigans with Nehemiah including a "Why can't we all just get along?" bit. Nehemiah was not having any of it. See "Ten Lies Satan Tells to Biblical Creationists" for more.

The National Review is ostensibly a Conservative publication in the United States, so it seems out of place for it to be publishing a Darwinism propaganda piece on May 13, 2019. Razib Khan, a Darwinian apparatchik, praised evolution up one side and down the other, glossing over its failures and praising its imagined successes. He Sanballated that we should embrace the Bearded Buddha and put aside our silly creationist ways. After all, other religious folks believe evolution.

Many creationist sites (including this one) have pointed out that evolutionary thinking has hindered science, was a strong influence for Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and other tyrants, ruthless laissez-faire capitalism, eugenics, abortion, and other evils. (Go ahead, so a search on those on this site.) Dr. Khan wants us to accept evolution for many bad reasons.


via GIPHY

What really takes the rag off the bush is how atheist Razib seems to be scientific. He also appears to be ignorant of what Darwin has given us. I'm not accepting it, and will risk the wrath of Khan by saying that he is being dishonest. 

Let's be pals, as long as you see things his way. (Notice that when sidewinders want others to be "reasonable", we are the ones who are supposed to compromise our values and beliefs?) The offer of getting along, maybe head over to the saloon and have a few drinks with the hands at the Darwin Ranch, this is like the fake friendship that Sanballat offered Nehemiah. Khan does not have our best interests at heart.

Something that is extremely problematic is that people fall for this kind of thing because too many "think" with their emotions, not with logic. (He's an author and a scientist, so they can fall for the faulty appeal to authority.) Christians need to go a step above critical thinking and think biblically.

Also note that the publication makes no pretense at Christianity. It is firmly rooted in the evolutionism that dominates our society. My speculation is that they would have no problem with Darwinist-based laissez-faire capitalism.
The National Review is a longstanding conservative news outlet in the United States—but what, exactly, are they trying to conserve? This week, an article was published on their website by Razib Khan, an atheist geneticist1 who refers to himself as ‘sympathetic to classical liberalism’, by the title of, “Conservatives Shouldn’t Fear Evolutionary Theory”.

In this piece, Khan attempts to put a conservative spin on Darwinism, claiming it is “a crowning achievement of Western civilization and a rejoinder to the modern myths of the Left.” Wow! The atheist Khan employs all the usual tactics here, bringing up the fact that, “many Christians well-versed in evolutionary science find it entirely compatible with their religious beliefs.” Yes, but is it actually compatible with the Bible? That’s the only important question!
To read the rest, click on "'Conservative' news site publishes pro-evolution misinformation piece". I also highly recommend the May 14, 2019 episode of The Briefing by Dr. Albert Mohler; you can listen or read the transcript. By the way, don't be getting your spiritual advice from secular publications. You savvy?



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, May 18, 2019

Understanding the Opposition

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In the May 2, 2019 episode of The Briefing, Dr. Mohler discussed Emperor Naruhito taking the throne in Japan after his father's abdication. Al presented some fascinating history about World War II, Douglas MacArthur and then-emperor Hirohito. I saw some things that can apply to Christians and creationists when dealing with atheists and evolutionists.


Taking some lessons from history like Douglas MacArthur and the Japanese, we see that we need to understand atheism and evolutionism. Our apologetic methods must be better than those of mockers.
General Douglas MacArthur and Emperor Hirohito, September 27,1945
US Army photo by Lt. Gaetano Faillace
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by the US Army)
The Japanese and American cultures were vastly different, and Americans seemed to have a superficial understanding of the Japanese people. If you know your World War II history, an invasion of Japan to end the war would have resulted in a horrendous loss of life on both sides, so the decisions were made to drop two atomic bombs to cause Japanese surrender. Some people wanted to have Hirohito stand trial as a war criminal and then execute him. However, MacArthur had different ideas. 

Shintoism was the dominant religion of Japan, and the people revered their emperors as either gods or conduits to the gods, which was probably one reason they would not surrender despite being defeated. MacArthur understood the importance of their religion to the Japanese people. The Allies had just wrecked Japan, but we operated from Christian foundations and could not leave them devastated. If Hirohito was executed, it would send Japan into a further decline or possibly cause a massive rebellion against the occupiers. Instead, a mutually acceptable arrangement was made that helped Japan recover.

Look just a few miles to the west. Those of us who know a bit about the invasion and ongoing occupation of Tibet can understand that the Chinese worldview was (and is) rooted in atheistic brutality. The Tibetans wanted to be left to their own devices. The Bon religion was prominent in Tibet until they became predominantly Mahayana Buddhist (some version of Bon are merged with Buddhism). The religion and culture were intertwined, but the ChiComs were heavy-handed and showed contempt for the Tibetans and their culture. This has backfired on the Chinese.

On a side note, the day I began writing this article, Dr. Mohler discussed another change of monarchy. King Maha Vajiralongkorn became both a deity and a king in Thailand.

While it can be fascinating to examine history and cultures that are foreign to those of us in the West, we can find some practical applications for Christians and creationists. The religion of atheism is not exactly unified. People identify themselves as weak, strong, Christian (yes, really) atheists, atheist-agnostic, and more. While there are several "leaders" of atheism, they do not necessarily get along or even trust each other. When engaging professing atheists (or agnostics), we need to find out what individuals believe and deal with them on that level, giving them a critique of their worldviews.

In a similar way, molecules-to-man evolutionism is very disjointed. Not all accept certain alleged transitional forms, there is disagreement whether or not dinosaurs evolved into birds, the evolutionary timeline is constantly being rewritten, and so on. Those of us who are serious about biblical creation science need to keep up on the material, which educates us on what is happening for both creationist and evolutionist ideas. (On social media, we often need to correct skeptics on their own mythology.) Then we can engage those who are honestly seeking answers.

Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes (click for larger)
Conversely, atheists and anti-creationists seldom seek to follow General MacArthur's example, seeking to at least understand where we are coming from so they can have rational discussions with us. They prefer to use misrepresentation and ridicule, and demonstrate a lack of familiarity with reason — which they ironically claim to uphold. Both atheists and evolutionists (and we have seen this many times on this site alone) argue from materialistic presuppositions and biases.

We also argue from our presuppositions and biases. However, science, logic, reason, and truth are on our side. While we seek to understand where others are coming from, we have no business setting aside the Bible. Wisdom and logic come from God, who makes science even possible in the first place. I maintain that atheism and evolutionism are not about facts and logic, else everyone would have a biblical creationist worldview. It is a spiritual problem. 

For the glory of God and properly presenting the gospel, we have to be better than those who hate us in our apologetics. That includes trying to understand where they are coming from, even if they have no desire to understand us.





Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, May 17, 2019

Another Solar System Formation Model Fails

Purveyors of starstuff-to-security guard evolution are still saddling up that old swayback of the nebular hypothesis for the formation of our solar system. Other conjectures fail even more, so they keep going back to the best of bad. This time, a new computer model lets them down.

Secular astronomers have tried several ideas for the formation of the solar system, and stay with the best of the bad. A new model shows that this idea will still not work.
Credit: NASA / Jenny Mottar (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
We saw that programming a robot to simulate flight evolution is ridiculous because programmers get the results they expect. In this computer solar system model, however, programmers are constrained with actual facts. The model indicated that secularists still have many problems; naturalism cannot explain the origin of the solar system. Want to know why? It did not happen by chance, but was created by the Master Engineer — and it was created much more recently than they want to admit.
The simulations do not even start with the gas/dust nebular cloud from which the solar system is supposed to have evolved, but start at a point where it is assumed that planet-sized bodies have already formed from accumulation of mass, thus skipping other potential problems. The ‘embryos’ present at the start of these simulations are 10 or 20 large planet-size bodies, and several thousand small planetesimals, at most a few hundred kilometres across.

Then computer simulations are run (or ‘allowed to evolve’ under standard gravitational physics) with various initial parameters in an effort to produce the solar system we observe.
To read the entire article, click on "How did the Solar System form?"

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, May 16, 2019

Flight Evolution and Robots

The hands at the Darwin Ranch are all a-twitter because of a robot bird that has been developed. Not so much the robot bird itself since that has been done before, but making a version of Caudipteryx, a disputed "dinosaur with feathers". Yee ha boy howdy, it flapped its robot wings when it ran.


In their futile quest to demonstrate dinosaur-to-bird evolution, researchers made a robot that flapped its wings when it ran. This proves that they can build a robot to do what they want.
Caudipteryx Hendrickx image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Christophe Hendrickx (CC by-SA 3.0)
There's a wagon train-load of assumptions (and wishful thinking) happening. First, researchers assume that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Second, they assumed evolution itself is not a myth. Third, the way it moved was assumed. Fourth, since all we have are fossils, many assumptions were made about its appearance. 

Using these and other assumptions, they made a robot that flapped when it ran. Of course. Any programming, including artificial intelligence, begins with the input given by the programmers. Like evidence, if you torture programming enough, it will confess to anything.

What kind of effort was put into the mimicking of flight and running? Running is very complex, and the flight is not to be underestimated. When people attempted to mimic birds, they tended to utilize the up-and-down flapping motion that they could see. It wasn't until more recent times that special cameras could capture the intricacies of flight as designed by the Master Engineer.


Frankly (mind if I call you Frank?), the whole thing is absurd. Indeed, it seems that Darwin's disciples are becoming more and more desperate to validate their false worldview in light of the truth from biblical creation science. Everything was created recently, evolutionary machinations notwithstanding.
This is silly. A robot model with outstretched arms cannot begin to say how dinosaurs took wing.

“Robot dinosaurs help unlock the evolution of flight” shouts a headline at New Atlas. Michael Irving uses standard hype language to try to interest a bored public dazed by non-stop evolutionary myths:
To finish reading, click on "Flight: If You Can’t Evolve It, Model Your Imagination".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Biology and the Young Earth

The propaganda mill of the secular science industry has been effective in convincing people that Earth is billions of years old. True believers point to tendentious (but highly unreliable) numbers from radiometric dating to support their viewpoint, ignoring evidences for the young earth using their own methods against them (such as ocean salinity, for example). You might be surprised to learn that there are biological evidences for our blue marble being young.


Although there are many evidences for a young earth in geology, there are also biological evidences. These refute deep time and evolutionary claims.
Background image credit: RGBStock / Tomislav Alajbeg
Sure, biblical creationists have a passel of evidences from geology and other sciences. I reckon a planet's age would most likely be inferred from geology. Physical sciences to not stand alone, but interact with each other. When we bring up examples from science, anti-creationists go haywire and pretend they do not exist. Here are just a few instance from biology for Earth and life on it being recently created.
What does the Bible tell us about the age of the earth? Not only does the Bible describe how God created Earth and its life forms in six days, Genesis also contains detailed genealogies and chronologies. Based on the Hebrew Masoretic text, one can deduce Earth’s age to be about 6,000 years. In contrast, evolutionists believe Earth is 4.6 billion years old and that life here got going about 3.5 billion years ago.

While the evolutionary story is just naturalistic speculation, the Bible gives a fairly complete history and timeline that provide the basis for what is often called a young-earth creationist view. But do the scientific facts demonstrate a young age for Earth? This article will show that a young earth is well supported by the biological data.
To read the rest, click on "Six Biological Evidences for a Young Earth". A similar article may be of interest, "Circular Reasoning Surrounds Human Origins, but Even a Broken Clock Is Right Twice a Day".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Disparity, Diversity, and the Cambrian Explosion

One of the greatest problems for deep time geologists and evolutionists is the Cambrian explosion. The name may bring to mind images of loud noises, flashes, and smoke, but it actually means that a passel of critters seemed to explode on the scene in the Cambrian layer.


The disparity of life forms found in the Cambrian explosion are often downplay or make excuses to avoid the problems that it has caused their belief system for many years. Release the rescuing devices.
Credit: Freeimages / Dave Dyet
I'll allow that creationists tend to oversimplify the importance of the Cambrian explosion (myself included) by pointing out the diversity of life that, according to evolutionists, suddenly appeared on the scene. While that is not wrong, it is incomplete. There is disparity of life forms. That is, there are markedly different life forms near the top of the biological classification table. (Diversity may be more appropriately applied to creatures lower on the table, such as species or genus.) According to evolutionary thinking, there was no time for all these things to develop. What we see is evidence for recent creation, not deep time and evolution.

Mostly made at Hetemeel.com
Sure, Darwin's disciples try to find rescuing devices and evosplain it, but those invariably fail. Some just wave it off; I had an atheopath lie about what fossils were involved and the importance of their sudden appearance. Hand-waving is not scientific, nor is simply asserting that creationist arguments have been refuted — especially when the problems continue to mount for evolution. Downplaying the Cambrian problem will not help, either. So, what about lengthening the timeframe? Will that help?
Gage C. from the United States writes:
Dear CMI,

I’ve recently been going through a time of doubt and during my search for answers I’ve hit something of a stumbling block. I’ve come across a number of articles written in the past 4–5 years describing the Cambrian Explosion as having occurred over the course of about 25–55 million years. The suggesting being that the developments seen are compatible with an evolutionary time scale as there is plenty of time for life to develop into newer forms. This question is furthered by the claim that many of the fossils found show a steady change linking back to a common ancestor. I’m sorry if my question has been answered by one of your prior articles, but I could not find anything addressing these claims. I don’t know how to respond to those who say our arguments have been “long refuted.” I look forward to your response and hope to see a day when we are no looked down on for our beliefs.
CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:
I'd take it mighty kindly if you would read the response. There is some excellent information there. Just click on "Doubt and the Cambrian explosion". Some other items for your consideration: "Showing Backbone in the Cambrian Explosion", "More Rumblings in the Cambrian Explosion", and "Magical Mystery Evolutionary Explanations for the Cambrian Explosion".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, May 13, 2019

Cursed Snakes and Genetics

When some folks see a snake, they light a shuck out of there. That may be a good practice in the great outdoors if you are unskilled in recognizing reptiles. Most want to go about their business and be left alone. I think some might be on the prod because of the curse way back in Genesis 3:14.

Research on snake genes shows what we learned back in Genesis. Namely, that they lost their limbs.
Credit: Pixabay / Tahlia Stanton
One part of the curse is that snakes would "eat dust". Not that it was intended to be their primary diet by any means, but they do "eat" dust to some extent. Apparently the serpent in Genesis had limbs, but we are not told if the curse was instantaneous or it took a long time, but you don't see a snake taking a stroll nowadays.

Some genes are regulated according to where they are located in a body, so the gene can work in one place but is switched off in another. Those affecting limbs did not interfere with the ability of snakes to reproduce (obviously). Purveyors of particles-to-python evolution cannot explain why snakes didn't simply die out because of their loss of abilities. They also have to deal with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
All snakes today are limbless, and from written historical records going back thousands of years, that is also how they are described. The fossil record of snakes is robust, and even baby snakes have been found in Cretaceous amber, conventionally dated at 99 MY.  . . . But one thing that can be stated with certainty is that snakes were cursed, and genetic insight is beginning to reveal just how extensively.

A recent study was published purporting to explain how snakes lost their limbs, and it revealed some surprising findings. The study mentioned above not only probed the question of snake limbs but also sightless subterranean mammals. In the latter case, there was a widespread loss of genes responsible for different components of sight, but in the case of snakes, there was only one gene lost (HoxD12), but hundreds of limb regulatory elements were substantially altered and non/miss-expressed.
To read the entire article, move on over to "Snakes Appear to Live a Cursed Life". The video below has some amazing camera work:



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, May 11, 2019

Brian Sims and the Increasing Fanaticism of Abortionists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

People who support abortion are frequently vehement in their views, but it should give Brian Sims (a Democrat member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives) reason to pause when both pro-life and pro-abortion people agree that he is out of line. It is obvious that he is a bully. However, I am not going to spend much time dealing with what has already been covered in the news. Instead, we are going to ride along a slightly different trail and learn some important things.


Abortionist Brian Sims is in the news and in trouble for harassing pro-life people. We can learn some things from his diatribe.
Credit: Freestocks / Joanna Malinowska
Before we return to Brian Sims, some other items need to be mentioned. I learned quite a bit from The Chris Stigall Show podcasts, including interviews and his own insight, so I thank him for that. I recommend the podcast called "The Great Pushback" at the 19 min. 34 sec. mark for an excellent discussion. Free to listen online or download.


The Evolution Deception

Regular readers know that I am strongly pro-life. A child is fully human from conception, and this is supported both biblically and by medical science. Biblical creationists uphold the sanctity of life, maintaining that humans are uniquely created in the image of God and are not "just another animal".

The secular science industry has been acting like coyotes, pretending to be doing science work but instead, they are smuggling leftist ideas into the mainstream. We have seen these things here many times regarding fish-to-fool evolution, but secularists are also promoting abortion.

It was more subtle in the past. Abortionists would add to their "it's just a clump of cells" or "conceptus" lie by saying the child is going through previous stages of evolution. Some would pretend to prove it with Ernst Haeckel's drawings. Those drawings have been known to be fraudulent for many years. Even so, abortionists use that Haeckel evolution excuse to justify murdering children. For more about this, see "Evolution and Abortion". Because PP has such a negative image, they are trying to rebrand themselves.


Planned Profithood

Brian Sims was asking for donations to Planned Parenthood. Why? Because they allegedly stand for "reproductive freedom". If you study on it a spell, you'll realize that such a term actually implies that women carry human children, not reproducing something else. Again, why support that company? Not only do they receive our tax dollars (despite the objections of many Americans), PP is also highly profitable. I reckon there's something wrong with people who donate to well-heeled organizations in the first place.


Founded on Racism

In the videos, Sims called the people he bushwhacked "racists". Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood. She was a firm racist and eugenicist, implementing the "Negro Project" as a thinly-veiled effort to reduce the population of black Americans. Ever notice that the majority of Planned Parenthood clinics are in minority areas?


People Know They Are Killing Children

Despite using fake science as an excuse for abortion and forming other excuses, people do know that they are killing children.Some even freely admit it, and are proud of what they are doing. Many in the pro-life community (such as anti-creationist, anti-Bible Matt Walsh) want to educate people about the unborn child being a person, but the hearts of abortionists are the problem, not their minds. They wish to continue with their immorality and selfishness. The Word of God is the answer, despite Walsh's apparent contempt for it. See Sye Ten Bruggencate's discussion in his video, "How To Answer Matt Walsh Part 1". I want to add that Sye spends a bit more time than necessary refuting Matt's claim that Sye used a bad analogy, but I recommend staying with the video. He also provided some links below the video that you may find helpful.


Learning from Brian Sims

I have pointed out several times that atheists and anti-creationists try to control discussions, and we should not let them put us on the defensive. Instead, we need to keep them on-topic, and asking them good questions is very helpful. This concept also applies in pro-life discussions. However, when it becomes clear that someone is unwilling to act in a rational manner and prefers to justify his or her rebellion against God, it is usually time to move on.

Even though Sims was harassing people (and getting himself in trouble in the process), we can learn from what happened (you can follow the link just above and find links to his videos). First of all, why does it matter that the people he picked on were white (with one embarrassing exception: "I'm pretty far from white")? It is irrelevant, but he follows it up with the risible falsehood that what they were doing was "racist".

Sims also used the question-begging epithet "pseudo-Christians", and said, "What you are doing is far from Christian!" According to what standard? How do you define Christian? The Bible tells Christians to defend life and defend the helpless. How does encouraging the murder of unborn children make someone a better Christian? Chris Stigall suggests that Brian should "redirect his ire and concern for inclusivity, tolerance, and respect elsewhere" to be consistent. Uh, Chris, you spelled his name wrong.

Sims also kept repeating "shame on you" and making other accusations. Again, by what standard should these people be ashamed? Is there a reason he picked on Roman Catholics? They have a right to practice their religion in a peaceful manner, and it was clear that they were doing just that. (Although I am a Protestant, I support their rights.) Also, he demanded, "How many children have you clothed today?..."How many children have you put shoes on their feet today?" Two things wrong with that. First, those questions were an irrelevant thesis, a kind of straw man or red herring that has nothing to do with the situation. Second, he tacitly admitted that PP is killing children!

Leftists like Sims would like to invite people like me to a necktie party. I am a Christian, biblical creationist, white, male, heterosexual, politically Conservative. And my apologetics approach is rooted in a presuppositional framework.


The Noetic Effect

Brian relishes his sin and is so angry that he cannot think clearly. He is (or was) an attorney, but he is doing things that he knows are illegal. He is in grave danger. Romans 1:24 NASB has a phrase that should be chilling: God gave them over. To put it another way, God is saying, "You reject me, so have it your way." Sin touches every area of our lives, and is worse when we suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans. 1:18).

Thinking is clouded, especially on areas of morality. This is the noetic effect of sin. I have seen people who are rational in some areas, but when it comes to the truth about God, they go off the rails and become incoherent. Truth, science itself, logic, morality — all come from God. Many folks (like one mentioned here) invent a god that makes them comfortable, but they cannot use reason consistently. Notice how Sims was infuriated by the calm responses from people who would not react to his provocations?

Most Important

As a pro-life Christian and a biblical creationist, I implore Brian Sims and others to repent. They cannot save themselves through activism on one side or the other. Religion cannot save you. Nor can politics. We all will stand before our Creator Jesus Christ and confess that he is Lord of all (Romans 14:11, Isaiah 45:23, Philippians 2:10-11). I am ready for that day. Are you?

Some other items for your consideration. First, "Refuting Arguments Abortionists Use". Next, you may want to see Tucker Carlson's interview with the mother of the teenagers who were harassed by Brian Sims. Here is a link to material on logical fallacies that we frequently encounter. Finally, the video "Seven Reasons" is presented below.




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, May 10, 2019

Breeding Humans and Chimpanzees

In my early 2018 article "Human-Chimp Hybrids?",  I discussed some of the science philosophy and ethical concerns with this breeding concept. The article linked below deals with some of the science as well as other problems.

 Purveyors of molecules-to-monkey evolution and other secularists have long sought to do away with the Creator in regards to their version of science. Charles Darwin was influenced by Charles Lyell's ideas of geology, and Lyell wanted to divorce geology "from Moses". A similar view has been used in attempts to breed humans with chimpanzees.


In their efforts to reject the Creator, some evolutionists want to attempt hybridizing humans and chimpanzees. There are serious problems with the entire process.
Credit: RGBStock / Stella Bogdanic
No, we're not talking about actual physical contact, as breeding between the two does not and cannot happen in nature. Efforts have been made to make it happen artificially (with a racist approach, no less), but always failed. Now another sidewinder wants to use the CRISPR gene editing device to try again. He argues that humans are just animals and not created separately in God's image. One major problem with his view is the debunked claim that humans and chimps have extremely similar DNA.

There is also the problem of ethics. Indeed, secularists have few qualms in tinkering with DNA and chimeras. This was clearly seen when Dr. He Jiankui produced the first genetically-modified babies. The ethics of human-chimp hybrids should not cause many qualms with creation deniers.
A new movement headed by Professor David Barash to prove evolution by breeding humans with our claimed closest relative, the chimpanzee has gained credence. A core teaching of Neo-Darwinism is that humans are simply another animal produced by evolution. Researchers have produced many hybrids, even between two animals once classified as different species. . . .

Professor Barash concluded from this observation that it is “by no means impossible or even unlikely that a hybrid or a chimera combining a human being and a chimpanzee could be produced in a laboratory. After all, human and chimp (or bonobo) share, by most estimates, roughly 99 percent of their nuclear DNA.”He added that the gene-editing tool known as CRISPR...is regularly used to deliberately modify the genome of many life-forms. . . .

Consequently, Barash added, “it is not unreasonable to foresee the possibility—eventually, perhaps, the likelihood—of producing ‘humanzees’ or ‘chimp-humans.’ Such an individual would … be neither human nor chimp: rather, something in between.” Some evolutionists believe after humans and chimps separated from our common ancestor and became separate species we were still able to interbreed. Consequently, since we used to interbreed, to do so today would not be unexpected.
To read the entire article, click on "Leading Darwinist Advocates Breeding Humans with Chimps".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, May 9, 2019

Extraordinary Erosion of the Genesis Flood

It is usually evident when an area has undergone a flood. Water has marked trees and buildings, debris has been moved, and so on. Obviously, the larger the flood, the more telltale signs. When creation science geologists discuss the Genesis Flood that happened a few thousand years ago, they point out amazing amounts of erosion all over the world.


Erosion and other physical evidence of the Genesis Flood baffles secular geologists. Creation science Flood geology models explain what is observed.
From the New York State Education Department. Kaateskill. Internet.
Available from http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/research-collections/geology/resources/kaaterskill;
accessed May 2, 2010 (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Up here in my neck of the woods near the Catskill Mountains, we have planation surfaces (large, flat areas on mountains) such as nearby Kaaterskill. There is also an escarpment (sharp incline) that covers three counties, and you can hike a good part of it. Planation surfaces, escarpments, and I may as well add those stand-alone lumps called inselbergs are baffling to uniformitarian geologists because there is no sign of them happening today. Lots of flood water is fast and powerful.

Then we have phenomenal erosion. When folks tell the cutesy version of the Noah's Ark story, they usually present a silly bathtub Ark and talk about forty days and nights of rain. Some even add that the fountains of the great deep opened up. But there is much more to it than that. Not only do we have catastrophic plate tectonics, but the Flood was in stages. The Recessive Stage caused phenomenal erosion (much of this was deposited in the continental margins). Creation science Flood geology models explain what is observed far better than deep time secular models.
The Recessive Stage of the Flood was a time of intense continental erosion. The erosional debris formed the continental margin—a continuous wedge of mostly compacted sediments surrounding the continents. If we can determine which part of this wedge is composed primarily of detritus eroded during the Recessive Stage, some later cementing to sedimentary rock, then estimating the volume of those sediments and rocks could provide a rough quantitative estimate of material eroded from the continents. At present, a total value is not possible, but such an estimate can be made for select areas, providing a methodology that can be expanded to other marginal areas. One such area is the central Appalachian Mountains of the United States and its downgradient continental margin. Research shows an approximate average of 6,000 m of erosion across the Blue Ridge and Piedmont provinces. Another area is the continental margin off south-western Africa. Estimates there show an average 2,400 m of rock eroded off the adjacent continent. Erosion was probably greater in the coastal mountains and plains. Evidence from inselbergs on the coastal plain indicates that this erosional event was as rapid as it was significant. If representative, these studies show that much more sedimentary rocks and sediments existed on the continents than the present average of 1,800 m. Since a large proportion (about 30% or more) of the margin sedimentary rocks are Cenozoic, the Flood/post-Flood boundary must be in the late Cenozoic, assuming the geological column is an accurate chronostratigraphic representation of the rock record.
Yes, it's rather technical. To read the rest, click on "Tremendous erosion of continents during the Recessive Stage of the Flood".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, May 8, 2019

Folding Molecules and the Origin of Life

When someone says protein, the first thing I think of is how I can fold it. Just kidding, I think of protein-rich foods. There are millions of kinds of proteins which are classified according to their functions and other criteria. Folding is a very specific biological process.


Research into the folding of a molecule was applied to guesswork about proteins in the distant past and evolution. This part of the research is not science.
Credit: Pixabay / Colin Behrens
Protein folding is not fully understood, but it is vitally important because it is the way proteins take their shapes so they can be useful. If they don't fold properly, they are useless, and the particles can actually be harmful. Some researchers got a molecule to fold, and remarked that maybe complex molecules can be had before evolution began. This is based on materialistic presuppositions, not on actual scientific evidence. Abiogenesis has been refuted long ago, but that doesn't stop some materialists in blind faith denial of our Creator.


Click for larger
Reporting from the secular science industry focused on the historical assumptions about the origin of life, so these owlhoots were celebrating what they consider to be another nail in the Creator's coffin. But this is not only historical science speculations, it is also applying the folding of a molecule to that of proteins in the alleged distant past. This aspect is not science. The press ignored the majority of the paper about the chemistry research.
Recently published research discusses the synthesis and characterization of a large molecule which folds into a ring pattern with five-fold symmetry. The size and shape of any given molecule have many implications in its usefulness as a catalyst, a chemical sensor, a scaffold for further reactions, or in its medicinal applications. However, the use of terminology including spontaneous, chemical evolution and even a subheading “Origin of Life” through the article displays the mindset of the authors. Our responsibility as Christians is to discern the difference between the discussion of results and the statements made which are interpreted through an anti-biblical worldview.
To read the entire article, click on "Folding Molecules Give Insight to Origin of Life".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, May 7, 2019

Termite Mounds and Creation

Once again, we need to leave our aversion to an annoying creature back at the stable so we can commence to pondering the work of the Master Engineer. In an earlier post, we looked at how small things can have an impact on their environment, such as termite skyscrapers. So, what is the story with termite nests?

While few of us like termites, we can appreciate the work of the Master Engineer who gave these evolution-defying insects the ability to build their amazing homes.
Credit: John P. Mosesso, USGS (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Some of those nests are mighty impressive mounds that house millions of termites. Others are less impressive, but either way, they have to be built to successfully accommodate their residents. Our Creator gave them the ability to act like they have one mind to build and maintain their nests, even to the point of windows to deal with the buildup of carbon dioxide. This alone is evidence for creation, but it gets worse for Darwin's disciples when the fossil record show that termites have always been termites. No evolution here, Hoss!
Termites (order Isoptera) are eusocial—animals with an advanced social organization—insects that can number in the millions, producing something biologists call a superorganism. This is defined as a colony of termites having features of organization analogous to the properties of a single creature. These insects have the ability to digest wood due to symbiotic gut-dwelling flagellates, single-celled eukaryotic creatures that have enzymes capable of breaking down cellulose.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Termite Nest Architectural Design Is Clearly Seen".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels